AJAY CHAUDHARY Vs. SANTOSH KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PLAINTIFF Smt. Santosh Kumari is the wife of Ch. Dube Singh of village Kurar. Defendant No. 1 is Ch. Sube Singh himself while defendant No. 2 Ajay Chaudhary and defendant No. 3 Sanjay Chaudhary are the sons of Ch. Sube Singh. On 8.4.1991 Smt. Santosh Kumari filed suit for declaration against Ch. Sube Singh and his two sons Ajay Chaudhary and Sanjay Chaudhary whereby she prayed that decree dated 12.3.1991 vide which 67 kanal 5 marlas of land detailed in para No. 1 of the plaint situated in village Nangal Khurd, Tehsil and District Sonepat was transferred in the name of the defendants in almost equal shares, be annulled. It is alleged in the plaint that she was the owner of land measuring 67 kanal 5 marla situated in village Nangal Khurd, Tehsil and District Sonepat. Since sometime past, Ch. Sube Singh became more favourably disposed towards his elder son Ajay Chaudhary. He wanted larger share of TPS Research and Breeding Farm to his elder son Ajay Chaudhary. She was insisting upon both Ajay Chaudhary and Sanjay Chaudhary being given equal share so that there was no jerk to the peace and harmony in the family in future. Defendant Ch. Sube Singh began nursing ill-will towards her as he was not approving that both the sons be given equal share in TPS Research and Breeding Farm. He started beating her, torturing her in different ways and imputing unchastity to her. She and Ch. Sube Singh were away to Putaparti. There arose great uproar between them. After they returned from Putaparti, she was virtually kept captive in her own house since 17.2.1991. She was threatened to part with the land in their name or else she would be done to death. On the night of 1st March, 1991 her neck was pressed in order to kill her. She raised hue and cry. Her sons Ajay Chaudhary and Sanjay Chaudhary came to her rescue and freed her from the clutches of Ch. Sube Singh. On 2.3.1991. Ch. Sube Singh's sister came. She was kept on her watch and she was instructed that she should not be allowed to be freed from her captivity till she agreed to part with her land. She (Smt. Santosh Kumari) was also threatened that if she did not agree to part with the land, she would be shot dead. Sanjay Chaudhary defendant was also threatened that if she did not agree to make statement in court parting with the land, he would be shot dead. On 7.3.1991, Ch. Sube Singh brought her to Sonepat courts saying that they had filed some suit, she should make statement in the suit as per their desire. At that time also gun and cartridges were lying in the van. She, Ajay Chaudhary, Sanjay Chaudhary and Ch. Sube Singh's sister were left in the van by Ch. Sube Singh and himself went to some Advocate. After some time, he brought some Munshi near the van and got her signatures on some papers. She had not known any Advocate at Sonepat. One Ram Sarup Rana, Advocate was told to be her counsel in that suit while Shri Jawahar Lal Rana, Advocate was told to be the counsel of the defendants in that suit. Ram Sarup Rama and Jawahar Lal Rana were told to be father and son practising together. Every thing done in that suit was done by S/Shri Ram Sarup Rana and Jawahar Lal Rana in conspiracy with Ch. Sube Singh. Thereafter, she was taken to the Court of Sh. Pruthi, Senior Sub Judge, Sonepat. Her signatures were taken on some statement without asking her anything. On 11.3.1991 she was taken to the Court of Naib Tehsildar, Sonepat by Ch. Sube Singh. At that time also, there was gun lying in the van. His elder son Ajay Chaudhary was also with him. Naib Tehsildar came to the van and asked her, her name etc. She was asked if she had any objection. As she was frightened, she accepted everything. On 21.3.1991, she came to the court alongwith her brother for knowing what exactly had taken place. She came to know that Ch. Sube Singh had got suit filed by himself, his sons Ajay Chaudhary and Sanjay Chaudhary against her for declaration in the Court of Senior Sub Judge, Sonepat on 12.3.1991 of misstating facts and had obtained therein though the fact of the matter is that no family settlement had even taken place. If no family settlement had taken place, there was no question of her having refused to acknowledge that family settlement for its being given effect to. If she wanted, she could part with that property in favour of her sons by sale or by means of gift. Ch. Sube Singh got land measuring 67 kanal 5 marla settled through a fictitious decree on the basis of fictitious settlement which never took place. She got nothing on the basis of the so- called family settlement. Sajay Chaudhary got inferior part of the property. That decree dated 12.3.1991 has no effect so far as her rights are concerned. It is null and void, it required registration as the value of the property involved was lacs of rupees. In the absence of registration no right, title or interest in the property vested in Ch. Sube Singh etc. defendants. In the plaint of that suit, false facts had been pleaded that the property was ancestral of the parties. In other words she was only benami owner of the property. Decree was hit by section 4 of the Benami Transaction and Prohibition Act, 1989. Decree was obtained by practising coercion and undue influence upon her. She and the defendants have been working together at TPS Research and Breeding Farm. On 12.1.1991, a fictitious lease deed was got executed from her under threat. It is stated that the decree dated 12.3.1991 is illegal, null and void and is not binding upon her rights. Similarly, pattanama dated 12.1.1991 got executed from her by Ch. Sube Singh by fraud is also null and void.

(2.) DEFENDANT No. 1 (Ch. Sube Singh) contested the suit. It was urged that she suffered that decree of her free will and volition. She is estopped by her own act and conduct from challenging the decree. Suit is not maintainable. Her suit is barred. It was admitted that she was absolute owner of the property. She was, however, trustee so far as he was concerned. She was constituted as owner of the property for the welfare of the entire family. In fact, he was the owner in possession of that property. He alone was managing the entire property. She was looking after only the household. So far as Ajay Chaudhary and Sanjay Chudhary are concerned, they were earlier studying at Public School Nabha and, thereafter till the year 1983 they were studying in college. They were incapable of managing any property. Equal share of the property was given to Ajay Chaudhary and Sanjay Chaudhary as settled to be given to them by the family settlement which was accepted by one and all. It was denied that she was subjected to any coercion or undue influence. In fact, nothing of the sort took place. She suffered that decree of her free will and volition. She has chosen to challenge that decree on the instigation of his elder brother Lal Chand and his elder brother's son Ajit Singh. She has fabricated this story with a view to be able to successfully challenge that decree. Otherwise, there is not even an iota of truth so far as this story goes. It was denied that the Benami Transaction and Prohibition Act, 1988 has any applicability so far as this decree is concerned It was denied that any pattanama was got executed on 12.1.1991 from her through undue influence or coercion.

(3.) DEFENDANT No. 3-Sanjay Chaudhary filed written statement admitting the claim of the plaintiff. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed :